Many questions!

[sum soul]

Assalaamu alaikum,

I hope you're all well inshaAllah. I have several questions that I'd like to ask out of curiosity. I'm not here to prove my own views, rather I'm looking for the truth. I know there are different sections of the forum, however, I thought it would be easier to post everything here if the moderators allow it.

My questions

1) What counts as a sunni? I've always known during the past 10 years that not all sunnis have the same beliefs, i.e. difference of opinion regarding celebrating the Prophet's birthday, saying Ya Muhammad etc, but in more recent years, I've come to know about various different groups through shia texts, such as the atharis, ash'aris and mu'tazilites. However, it doesn't seem like they all accept each other as sunnis, at least the atharis don't. I'm saying this based on the videos I've seen by abdulrahman hassan. Also, some books of athari aqeeda seem to have issues with them. So who is recognised as a sunni?

2) The athari creed says that they affirm Allah literally has hands and is established above a throne, although in a way that befits his majesty and this is the understanding of the sahaba. How many of the sahaba understood this? How do the athari creed understand the meaning of Allah being one and having different attributes? Do they believe Allah's attributes means that he has parts, even if they're not physical and nothing like His creation?

3) From what I've read on islamqa, the marriage of the prophet to aa'isha is because of a dream that he saw telling him that she would be his wife in this world and the next. This narration is considered as sahih by sunni standards (I'm not knowledgeable in hadith sciences), but what I've noticed is that it's narrated by aa'isha. I genuinely want to understand, how can we accept her own words about this, in praise of her, considering that she lied to the prophet regarding the smell of his breath which caused her to be condemned in the Quran for what she did out of jealousy? I'm not saying that anything she says is to be rejected, but even the twelvershia article acknowledges that she was willing to lie to the Prophet, even if it was out of love to begin with, so how can we trust her to narrate something good about herself?

4) I'm confused as to whether sunnis believe that the prophet appointed abu bakr as his successor based on the narrations of him leading the prayers, or if it was left to the ummah to decide? If it's the former, why did the companions have to gather in saqifa to see who would become the prophet's successor?

5) Were there companions who left Islam and fought abu bakr during his caliphate? If so, how does that affect the way the verses in the Quran which praise the companions are viewed?

6) I've listened to content about the definition of adalah al sahabah which I found interesting. I don't necessarily have a problem with accepting that companions could have committed some major sins and maintained their overall trustworthiness, but I'm struggling to understand how muawiyah fought ali, one of the greatest companions of the prophet, the fourth rightly guided caliph and still maintained his trustworthiness? Also, is it established among sunnis that muawiyah used to curse ali? I think that if christians maintained similar views about the disciplines of jesus, then sunni muslims would criticise them for having such beliefs.

7) What is the strongest opinion as to understanding who the quran referred to in 5:55, other than Allah and the prophet?

8 ) Why is it more logical to accept that ibrahim becoming an imam was that he became a leader for all, rather than having a new divine rank? I've also seen some people argue that even if the imamah is a divine rank, it's only proven to be for prophets. In this case, what is the theological difference between imamah, nabuwah and risalah according to sunnis?

Thank you.

[MuslimK]

Walaikum Salam,

Welcome to the forum.

I will quickly reply to the first point for now.

Difference of opinions will always exist. It doesn't necessarily mean they are difference of beliefs (Aqeedah), it could be a fiqhi issue. Just like there tons of difference of opinions between Shia Twelver Shia Ayatollahs (maraji, mujtahids). In fact, according to Tusi, one of the biggest twelver Shia scholars, the differences of opinion within the Imami sect is more than the four Sunni schools combined. That despite being a minority sect yet with more conflicting opinions (Is that from the blessing of Imamah and divine Imams?). Not to forget the other Shia sects. I will add more later.

P.S. Abdurrahman Hassan is not a scholar.

[Rationalist]

Before answering all these questions you need to understand Sunni and Shia are terms crystalized later. In the early stages of learning you will do taqleed, and later the more you learn the more your thoughts will become independants. For all schools we have the Quran as our main source, and chains connecting to the Prophet(pbuh). In our chains connecting to the Prophet(pbuh) we need to see where all Muslims whether Sunni and Shia agree. Disagreement will last till day of judgement. No Mahdi will come to end the differences, but a leader only tolerates the all schools of thought.

My questions

1) What counts as a sunni? I've always known during the past 10 years that not all sunnis have the same beliefs, i.e. difference of opinion regarding celebrating the Prophet's birthday, saying Ya Muhammad etc, but in more recent years, I've come to know about various different groups through shia texts, such as the atharis, ash'aris and mu'tazilites. However, it doesn't seem like they all accept each other as sunnis, at least the atharis don't. I'm saying this based on the videos I've seen by abdulrahman hassan. Also, some books of athari aqeeda seem to have issues with them. So who is recognised as a sunni?

Tawasul is a deeper topic. Many Muslims don't read the Quran daily and don't even pray. Yet they rush to say Ya Ali. These same people don't rush to the Quran with the same effort. They want to do ziyrat, but when it comes to tahajud they don't put in the effort

2) The athari creed says that they affirm Allah literally has hands and is established above a throne, although in a way that befits his majesty and this is the understanding of the sahaba. How many of the sahaba understood this? How do the athari creed understand the meaning of Allah being one and having different attributes? Do they believe Allah's attributes means that he has parts, even if they're not physical and nothing like His creation?

Before Shaykh Saqood came what did the Qummis believe? Why did Shaykh Mufid study under the Mutazilla?

3) From what I've read on islamqa, the marriage of the prophet to aa'isha is because of a dream that he saw telling him that she would be his wife in this world and the next. This narration is considered as sahih by sunni standards (I'm not knowledgeable in hadith sciences), but what I've noticed is that it's narrated by aa'isha. I genuinely want to understand, how can we accept her own words about this, in praise of her, considering that she lied to the prophet regarding the smell of his breath which caused her to be condemned in the Quran for what she did out of jealousy? I'm not saying that anything she says is to be rejected, but even the twelvershia article acknowledges that she was willing to lie to the Prophet, even if it was out of love to begin with, so how can we trust her to narrate something good about herself?

Do you feel the Prophet (pbuh) married to someone we Muslim should not trust?

4) I'm confused as to whether sunnis believe that the prophet appointed abu bakr as his successor based on the narrations of him leading the prayers, or if it was left to the ummah to decide? If it's the former, why did the companions have to gather in saqifa to see who would become the prophet's successor?

Did Abi Bakr say because he led namaz he should be the Calipah? Did Ali say he was appointed on Dawah al Asheera or Ghadir? No he didn't.

5) Were there companions who left Islam and fought abu bakr during his caliphate? If so, how does that affect the way the verses in the Quran which praise the companions are viewed?

No country today allows separatist movement. This is more political than religious.
 

6) I've listened to content about the definition of adalah al sahabah which I found interesting. I don't necessarily have a problem with accepting that companions could have committed some major sins and maintained their overall trustworthiness, but I'm struggling to understand how muawiyah fought ali, one of the greatest companions of the prophet, the fourth rightly guided caliph and still maintained his trustworthiness? Also, is it established among sunnis that muawiyah used to curse ali? I think that if christians maintained similar views about the disciplines of jesus, then sunni muslims would criticise them for having such beliefs.

No Sunni says Muawiyah was a calipah. The majority of sahaba gave bayah to Ali and not Muawiyah.

8 ) Why is it more logical to accept that ibrahim becoming an imam was that he became a leader for all, rather than having a new divine rank? I've also seen some people argue that even if the imamah is a divine rank, it's only proven to be for prophets. In this case, what is the theological difference between imamah, nabuwah and risalah according to sunnis?

Thank you.

Nabi Ibrahim(as) is the leader of all semetics religions. This is his leadership.

[sum soul]

Walaikum Salam,

Welcome to the forum.

I will quickly reply to the first point for now.

Difference of opinions will always exist. It doesn't necessarily mean they are difference of beliefs (Aqeedah), it could be a fiqhi issue. Just like there tons of difference of opinions between Shia Twelver Shia Ayatollahs (maraji, mujtahids). In fact, according to Tusi, one of the biggest twelver Shia scholars, the differences of opinion within the Imami sect is more than the four Sunni schools combined. That despite being a minority sect yet with more conflicting opinions (Is that from the blessing of Imamah and divine Imams?). Not to forget the other Shia sects. I will add more later.

P.S. Abdurrahman Hassan is not a scholar.

Apologies to the admins for making another account, I forgot my password. I honestly thought that my thread wouldn't be approved, I made something similar on shiachat.

Sure, I can appreciate that differences of opinion exist. Yeah, I'm aware of differences existing among muslims who call themselves shia and even the twelver shias, however, it's more of a question as to who is recognised as a sunni muslim. Is Asrar Rashid a scholar?

[sum soul]

Before answering all these questions you need to understand Sunni and Shia are terms crystalized later. In the early stages of learning you will do taqleed, and later the more you learn the more your thoughts will become independants. For all schools we have the Quran as our main source, and chains connecting to the Prophet(pbuh). In our chains connecting to the Prophet(pbuh) we need to see where all Muslims whether Sunni and Shia agree. Disagreement will last till day of judgement. No Mahdi will come to end the differences, but a leader only tolerates the all schools of thought.
Tawasul is a deeper topic. Many Muslims don't read the Quran daily and don't even pray. Yet they rush to say Ya Ali. These same people don't rush to the Quran with the same effort. They want to do ziyrat, but when it comes to tahajud they don't put in the effort
Before Shaykh Saqood came what did the Qummis believe? Why did Shaykh Mufid study under the Mutazilla?
Do you feel the Prophet (pbuh) married to someone we Muslim should not trust?
Did Abi Bakr say because he led namaz he should be the Calipah? Did Ali say he was appointed on Dawah al Asheera or Ghadir? No he didn't.No country today allows separatist movement. This is more political than religious.
 No Sunni says Muawiyah was a calipah. The majority of sahaba gave bayah to Ali and not Muawiyah.

 

Nabi Ibrahim(as) is the leader of all semetics religions. This is his leadership.

Yes, I'm aware that these terms developed over time. It was a question of who is currently considered as a sunni and if that was always the situation.

"Tawasul is a deeper topic. Many Muslims don't read the Quran daily and don't even pray. Yet they rush to say Ya Ali. These same people don't rush to the Quran with the same effort. They want to do ziyrat, but when it comes to tahajud they don't put in the effort"

I tried to multi quote your post, but I can't seem to figure it out. I agree with you that such problems exist, but I'm interested regarding the question of it's permissibility.

"Before Shaykh Saqood came what did the Qummis believe? Why did Shaykh Mufid study under the Mutazilla?"
I'm not sure to be honest, but I'd argue that regardless of who it is, believing that God has parts, even if it's metaphysical and establishes Himself above the throne which is created and is justified because there's nothing like God is just as illogical as being a Christian who believes in the plurality of the Godhead and that God the father is literally in heaven.

"Do you feel the Prophet (pbuh) married to someone we Muslim should not trust?"
I would argue that I don't see the logic in the Prophet, or any Prophet marrying someone who is generally known to be untrustworthy, but I also don't see how I can argue that a trustworthy person is guaranteed to remain trustworthy, at least on the same level.

"Did Abi Bakr say because he led namaz he should be the Calipah? Did Ali say he was appointed on Dawah al Asheera or Ghadir? No he didn't."

I've seen narrations about abu bakr leading prayer being used to prove he was the rightful first caliph so the question is based on that...

"No country today allows separatist movement. This is more political than religious."

I don't understand what you mean here.

"No Sunni says Muawiyah was a calipah. The majority of sahaba gave bayah to Ali and not Muawiyah."
Please explain what's said here:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2015/05/13/who-are-the-twelve-caliphs-sunni-view/
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/146316/the-hadeeth-there-will-appear-among-you-twelve-imams-coming-one-after-another-all-of-them-from-quraysh

"Nabi Ibrahim(as) is the leader of all semetics religions. This is his leadership."

In all honesty, I'm currently more inclined towards the sunni understanding of Ibrahim becoming an Imam, as in a leader for all mankind, rather than attaining another divine rank. However, a question remains. Ibrahim asks Allah about his progeny to which Allah responds his covenant does not go to the unjust. Is this covenant that people from the progeny of Ibrahim will also become Imams for mankind? Is becoming an Imam for mankind only limited tor Prophets?

[MuslimK]

Walaikum Salam,

Welcome to the forum.

I will quickly reply to the first point for now.

Difference of opinions will always exist. It doesn't necessarily mean they are difference of beliefs (Aqeedah), it could be a fiqhi issue. Just like there tons of difference of opinions between Shia Twelver Shia Ayatollahs (maraji, mujtahids). In fact, according to Tusi, one of the biggest twelver Shia scholars, the differences of opinion within the Imami sect is more than the four Sunni schools combined. That despite being a minority sect yet with more conflicting opinions (Is that from the blessing of Imamah and divine Imams?). Not to forget the other Shia sects. I will add more later.

P.S. Abdurrahman Hassan is not a scholar.

BTW Some of your questions have already been answered in this post (see the links):

https://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/i-want-to-become-a-sunni-but-which-sunni/msg28369/#msg28369

3) From what I've read on islamqa, the marriage of the prophet to aa'isha is because of a dream that he saw telling him that she would be his wife in this world and the next. This narration is considered as sahih by sunni standards (I'm not knowledgeable in hadith sciences), but what I've noticed is that it's narrated by aa'isha. I genuinely want to understand, how can we accept her own words about this, in praise of her, considering that she lied to the prophet regarding the smell of his breath which caused her to be condemned in the Quran for what she did out of jealousy? I'm not saying that anything she says is to be rejected, but even the twelvershia article acknowledges that she was willing to lie to the Prophet, even if it was out of love to begin with, so how can we trust her to narrate something good about herself?

How can we not trust someone who according to the authentic narration will be the wife of the Prophet (saw) in this world and in PARADISE? How can we not trust someone whom Allah honored with the title of MOTHER OF THE BELIEVERS? How can we not trust someone who when given the choice to choose between Allah and his Prophet (saw) and the world, she chose Allah and his Messenger (saw)? (This was in reference to Surah Tahreem).

[MuslimK]

"No Sunni says Muawiyah was a calipah. The majority of sahaba gave bayah to Ali and not Muawiyah."
Please explain what's said here:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2015/05/13/who-are-the-twelve-caliphs-sunni-view/
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/146316/the-hadeeth-there-will-appear-among-you-twelve-imams-coming-one-after-another-all-of-them-from-quraysh

These articles are not in conflict with what brother Rationalist said. Yes, Muawiyah did become a Caliph (when Hassan handed over the leadership) but he wasn't when Ali was the Caliph. I think you misunderstood these articles. They just list the twelve caliphs that meet the criteria of the Prophecy of the Prophet (saw). The list also includes Yazid but remember the Prophecy in the Hadith doesn't contain any praise or condemnation.

"Before Shaykh Saqood came what did the Qummis believe? Why did Shaykh Mufid study under the Mutazilla?"
I'm not sure to be honest, but I'd argue that regardless of who it is, believing that God has parts, even if it's metaphysical and establishes Himself above the throne which is created and is justified because there's nothing like God is just as illogical as being a Christian who believes in the plurality of the Godhead and that God the father is literally in heaven.

All the early Qummis were anthropomorphic with the exception of Saduq. Many Imami Shia narrations have come from them.

You can watch this video to get an idea:

and this:

[sum soul]

Just to clarify, I'm not here to defend any type of shiism, rather I'm here in a state of doubt trying to understand sunnis more, so if I come to the conclusion that I see the same problems with the shia belief of Allah as I do with the athari understanding, I would reject it. From what I've read in Saduq's kitab al tawhid, there are narrations from the Imams that condemn what Hisham said. If I remember correctly, there's a part of the book (maybe the translation) that said Hisham's understanding was poor wording. Regardless, I'll look into this more inshaAllah.

Regarding the twelve caliphs, from twelvershia.net
"there is nothing in the narration about the nature of these twelve caliphs. They are not described in any of the narrations in a positive or negative light, but only that Islam will see glory until they pass."

I don't understand how Islam will see glory during the time of the 12 caliphs if it's possible that at least one of the caliphs can be a tyrant in nature? How can a religion that is against tyranny see glory under a tyrant?

"How can we not trust someone who according to the authentic narration will be the wife of the Prophet (saw) in this world and in PARADISE? How can we not trust someone whom Allah honored with the title of MOTHER OF THE BELIEVERS? How can we not trust someone who when given the choice to choose between Allah and his Prophet (saw) and the world, she chose Allah and his Messenger (saw)? (This was in reference to Surah Tahreem)."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only seen the authentic narration according to sunni standards being reported by Aaisha herself about why the Prophet married her, so unless there's authentic narrations by others too, I will personally place doubt on this considering that she was known to show jealousy to the other wives of the Prophet and even lie to the Prophet himself.

What is the sunni position(s) of what it means to be the mother of the believers? As for surah tahreem, I don't see a contradiction between saying that she repented for her actions, but that it's still problematic taking narrations from herself that praise her if she's the only one who is reporting it from the Prophet. If I as a muslim, who comes 1400+ years after Aaisha am supposed to accept that it's logical to believe that she is one of the greatest women of all time, the best of the wives of the Prophet etc despite the problems I've raised, then how do I explain how Aaisha ends up going to battle with Ali, one of the greatest companions of the Prophet, one of the most pious, knowledgeable people in Islam during the time of the Prophet? Even if you believe that she was on the wrong side, how do you then justify looking at these major problems and still be able to take everything from her when it comes to your understanding of Islam?

[Rationalist]

You can go to the sunni defense youtube channel. It covers the athari understanding of tawheed. As for Aisha she had in law type of issues with Ali and Fatima in the life time of Prophet(pbuh) and was warned that dogs will bark at her when she will go into error. This does not mean she became a kaffir. The Muslim standard is the Quran first and Sunnah and nothing can match that standard. Remember majority of the sahaba gave their bayah to Ali. This means they didn't agree with all of Aisha's decisions.

[sum soul]

Can you recommend any of the videos that go more into depth on the athari understanding of tawheed?

Personally, I'm not claiming that she became a kafir. Rather, I'm saying that I don't see how we can trust her to narrate authentic sayings about herself from the Prophet given the sins that she committed, especially that she lied to the Prophet and was threatened with divorce. Of course, if others narrated such praise about her from the Prophet, then it becomes less problematic and perhaps trustworthy.

As for her battle with Imam Ali, I have no problem in acknowledging the sunni perspective of the wives and companions being great, pious people who make mistakes and disagree with each other, but going to battle? I just don't see how this is logically acceptable. I can understand that this is a very sensitive, especially for a sunni muslim. After all, if a person concludes that those who they believed were pious and trustworthy come into question, it leads to the conclusion of questioning the Quran and the Prophet himself.

[Rationalist]

Nobody said going to war is with the Calipah is acceptable. Its a form of transgressions. The majority of sahaba gave bayah to Ali and all should have been  obedient to him. There are view that they repented. If the reality is they didn't repented there is a big problem.

[Rationalist]

As for Abi Bakr and those who he fought, my question is do separatist movement survive very long. If somebody wanted to separate Balochistaan from Pakistan would it succeed? Abi Bakr's decision is more political than religion. Even Umar disagreed with him.

[Rationalist]

Try this video

https://youtu.be/rujiOcJ5ZKE

[sum soul]

"Nobody said going to war is with the Calipah is acceptable. Its a form of transgressions. The majority of sahaba gave bayah to Ali and all should have been  obedient to him. There are view that they repented. If the reality is they didn't repented there is a big problem."

This is what I don't understand. If the average muslim today can understand that there's a major problem with going to battle with the caliph of the time, a caliph who is recognised to be one of the closest companions of the Prophet, one of the most pious and knowledgeable people of their time, then how did Aaisha fail to understand this?

"As for Abi Bakr and those who he fought, my question is do separatist movement survive very long. If somebody wanted to separate Balochistaan from Pakistan would it succeed? Abi Bakr's decision is more political than religion. Even Umar disagreed with him."

I don't have the knowledge to answer your question. I haven't done much research about this area of Islamic history, so I was hoping to learn and understand the sunni perspective.

As for the video link you shared, are you recommending only the first part or are you saying I should watch all of it?

[Rationalist]

There is in law type of heat was that built up between Ali and Aisha. When Aisha was accused of adultary,  Ali supported the view that the Prophet (pbuh) should divorce her. This is in the commentary by ibn al Hadid. Rivalry happens between families. Look at Prophet Yusuf and his brothers. Do the ummah curse the 11 brothers today or call them hypocrites in the aftermath when Prophet Yusuf(as) settled everything?

[Rationalist]

I don't always trust the 12er Shia to be accurate when quoting ibn Abil Hadid, but they did add this in their commentary of Najh Al Balagha:

As long as she bore so much malice against Hadrat Fatimah, how could Fatimah's spouse be spared similar enmity and malice. Particularly when such events also occurred which worked like a fan and roused her feeling of hatred, such as the incident of "Ifk" when Amir al-mu'minin said to the Prophet: "She is no better than the buckles of your shoe, leave her and divorce her away." On hearing this `A'ishah must have felt miserable in her bed, and must have developed the severest feeling of hatred against him. There were also moments when distinction was conferred on Amir al-mu'minin in preference to Abu Bakr
al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-156-whoever-can-time-keep-himself

[MuslimK]

Can you recommend any of the videos that go more into depth on the athari understanding of tawheed?

Personally, I'm not claiming that she became a kafir. Rather, I'm saying that I don't see how we can trust her to narrate authentic sayings about herself from the Prophet given the sins that she committed, especially that she lied to the Prophet and was threatened with divorce. Of course, if others narrated such praise about her from the Prophet, then it becomes less problematic and perhaps trustworthy.

She has many praises about her from the Prophet (saw) narrated by other companions. The authentic narration of Ammar bin Yasir that She is the Wife of the Prophet (saw) in this world and in Paradise. Too many to list them here.

As for her battle with Imam Ali, I have no problem in acknowledging the sunni perspective of the wives and companions being great, pious people who make mistakes and disagree with each other, but going to battle? I just don't see how this is logically acceptable. I can understand that this is a very sensitive, especially for a sunni muslim. After all, if a person concludes that those who they believed were pious and trustworthy come into question, it leads to the conclusion of questioning the Quran and the Prophet himself.

Why is that illogical and something impossible that A battle can break out between two group of the BELIEVERS even though such a scenario is clearly mentioned in the Quran? It has nothing to do with a person's piety and trustworthiness.

Just to remove some misconception.

First of all, majority of the companions living did not take part in the fitna of Jamal.

Secondly, Mother of believers did not got into battle with Ali. She went after some of the killers of Uthman who had escaped to Basrah. There, they managed to kill Hukaym bin Jabala, one of the heads of the killers of Uthman, in a small battle (called the Minor Jamal). It was Ali who prepared an army to go after them them because he saw the army in Basrah as a threat. Both Ali and Aisha did not want to go into war but unfortunately the battle took place. According to reports mainly the young soldiers from one of the sides (both sides accused each other of starting) started the war then it turned into a full battle.

Please watch this to get a better understanding of the battle of Jamal:
https://youtu.be/S8ZOWjM88Fk

This is what I don't understand. If the average muslim today can understand that there's a major problem with going to battle with the caliph of the time, a caliph who is recognised to be one of the closest companions of the Prophet, one of the most pious and knowledgeable people of their time, then how did Aaisha fail to understand this?

It wasn't black and white. Remember the 90 year old Caliph was unjustly murdered in his own house and many of those rebels joined the ranks of Ali. Ali was powerless to deal with these rebels. It wasn't like the previous Caliph died peacefully and then Ali was chosen a Caliph then Aisha raised an army to fight him, this wasn't the case. This misinformation is what causes many people to ask such questions since they are not aware of the previous events. This is like watching a movie from the middle then asking questions how can this and that happen, if they had watched the first half they would get the picture why such and such happened.

Just like Ali was one of the most pious and knowledgeable person and so was Aisha the mother of the believers. How do we fail to understand this?

[MuslimK]

Just to clarify, I'm not here to defend any type of shiism, rather I'm here in a state of doubt trying to understand sunnis more, so if I come to the conclusion that I see the same problems with the shia belief of Allah as I do with the athari understanding, I would reject it. From what I've read in Saduq's kitab al tawhid, there are narrations from the Imams that condemn what Hisham said. If I remember correctly, there's a part of the book (maybe the translation) that said Hisham's understanding was poor wording. Regardless, I'll look into this more inshaAllah.

Keep in mind Saduq was a notorious fabricator and forgerer. He would alter early Shia texts to make them inline with his own beliefs - narrations related to Qadr, names and attributes, number and name of Imams etc.

Have a look at this:
https://www.twelvershia.net/sdm_downloads/the-distortions-of-al-saduq/

and this written by a former Twelver Shia researcher:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2017/02/19/3889/

Please read Al-Sharif al-Murtada's excuses for Hisham. Ironically, he made the same argument to defend Hisham that Atharis use. He said that Hisham believed "God is a body unlike other bodies and this is not tashbih". Keep in mind that Athari don't even say body but they make similar argument about other issues i.e. Hands etc. So why the Twelver Shia object to Atharis when their biggest scholar uses athari argument to defend one of the giants of their sect?

Regarding the twelve caliphs, from twelvershia.net
"there is nothing in the narration about the nature of these twelve caliphs. They are not described in any of the narrations in a positive or negative light, but only that Islam will see glory until they pass."

I don't understand how Islam will see glory during the time of the 12 caliphs if it's possible that at least one of the caliphs can be a tyrant in nature? How can a religion that is against tyranny see glory under a tyrant?

Why is it not possible that Islam and Muslims can be in a state of glory, power, expansion, scientific advancement, presence of prominent scholars etc even if one of the rulers happen to be a tyrant?

On the contrary, according to Twelver Shia their Imams were living the life of fear and taqqiya and even confusing their own close followers out of fear, Islam was hijacked and ruled by disbelievers and hypocrites - so according to them it was definitely not a time of glory. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the Twelver Shia to use this Hadith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only seen the authentic narration according to sunni standards being reported by Aaisha herself about why the Prophet married her, so unless there's authentic narrations by others too, I will personally place doubt on this considering that she was known to show jealousy to the other wives of the Prophet and even lie to the Prophet himself.

According to Shia narrations "A wife's jealousy is love for her husband".

What is the sunni position(s) of what it means to be the mother of the believers?

She is to be HONOURED, RESPECTED, NOT TO BE MARRIED (there is also another explicit verse about the prohibition of marriage).

This is also the view of Shia scholar al-Tabatabaie as he mentioned in his Tafsir al-Mizan when commenting on the verse. Also mentioned in other Shia commentaries such Tafsir Safi, Tafsir Namoona and others etc.

Please read more here:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/04/25/respone-to-what-does-mother-of-believers-really-mean/

As for surah tahreem, I don't see a contradiction between saying that she repented for her actions, but that it's still problematic taking narrations from herself that praise her if she's the only one who is reporting it from the Prophet. If I as a muslim, who comes 1400+ years after Aaisha am supposed to accept that it's logical to believe that she is one of the greatest women of all time, the best of the wives of the Prophet etc despite the problems I've raised, then how do I explain how Aaisha ends up going to battle with Ali, one of the greatest companions of the Prophet, one of the most pious, knowledgeable people in Islam during the time of the Prophet? Even if you believe that she was on the wrong side, how do you then justify looking at these major problems and still be able to take everything from her when it comes to your understanding of Islam?

How does she making a mistake make her less knowledgeable or shrinks her knowledge? How does it make sense?

Many companions used to seek knowledge form Aisha. She was one of the scholars of her time.

I remember reading a Shia narration in which the Imam quotes a narration of Aisha to justify an Islamic ruling. So the infallible had no problem trusting Aisha.

[sum soul]

Is there a link to an article or something that has a list of authentic narrations by other praising Aaisha, preferably in English? Thanks.

Which battle took place between the believers that's clearly mentioned in the Quran? I would argue that unless some sort of major misunderstanding takes place between believers that for some reason doesn't allow them to resolve the issue through some sort of a consultation, then I don't see how we can maintain that they're both genuinely pious believers, especially if it takes place during the times of the companions of the Prophet.

I will look into the video you've posted and compare it to the shia narrative inshaAllah. Would you say the battle of siffin is also taken out of context? And can you educate me on the ridda wars please?

The core of the Quran's message is the belief and worship of one God that leads to success of humanity. What good are any of the other achievements if the caliph of the time is a tyrant who is recognised to be legitimate? I'd argue this narration is problematic for sunnis too.

I'm not arguing that Aaisha's sins and mistakes made her knowledgeable. Rather, it's a matter of whether or not we can completely trust her.

I'll look into the stuff you've posted on shiism, from the distortions of Saduq to the narrations about jealousy being love for the husband. What I will say is that I'm not here to prove shiism is right and I will even go as far as saying I can end up rejecting shiism and also reject the sunni narrative as well if I'm not convinced. With that being said, a question for you and the other brothers who quote shia sources. How do you know that you're not making the same mistakes as you claim the shia are? i.e. using reliable evidence within context when it comes to shia sources?

[Soccer]

Insights are for people who wish to be certain and conjecture for people who wish to confuse themselves. 

Quran can provide insights for those who seek them, but very few humans ever sought them and hardly anyone does in this age.